Talk:Gays Against Groomers/Archive 3

RFC Anti-LGBT, Right Wing in lede
The article Gays Against Groomers currently states they are a "right-wing" and "Anti-LGBT" group, in Wikipedia's voice, in the first sentence of the lead.

A: Should right-wing be in the lead in Wikipedia's Voice?

B: Should Anti-LGBT be in the lead in Wikipedia's Voice?

C: Should far-right be in the lead in Wikipedia's Voice?

Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Survey
Rlendog (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC) Jmaranvi (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes to both according to WP:GEVAL. Pro-extremist sources are not in the same league with anti-extremist sources.   Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk)  11:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * RFC amended to reflect what the article currently says. Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That means: Yes to B and C. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes to B and C, No to A As A would be redundant. Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes to B and C, as per the cited sources. I agree that A would be redundant. – GnocchiFan (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes to B and C, as this is well sourced, maybe more so than is really required. A is redundant as it is already covered by C. Also, describing an extremist movement as "right-wing" runs the risk of conflating normal right-wing politics with... um... this. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes to B and C as clearly supported by reliable sources. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No to all 3 - should not be listed in Wikivoice, but attributed as opinions. Per WP:BLPSTYLE "Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources." I looked at every single source on the page to see if there was a consensus in our sources on how to describe them - and there isn't.   The only source at the time that called the group "far-right" was AZ Mirror which isn't listed, but it is a "progressive" source.  If you look at WP:RSP, it describes the intercept as "Almost all editors consider The Intercept a biased source, so uses may need to be attributed."  The Advocate doesn't call the organization far-right, it calls them right-wing.  It says their founder has participated in "far-right social media circles" and was employed by a "far-right" employer. Per WP:BLPBALANCE "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association".  "Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times."  In addition, under WP:BLPSOURCES, "contentious material" is defined as "any material challenged or likely to be challenged".  If you review the history of the talk page, the material is challenged over and over and over - by different people all the time, so the contentious material definition applies. "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion."  Per WP:WIKIVOICE "If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." "Prefer nonjudgmental language." "basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements."  When we only look at the best, unbiased sources... we get a different point of view then when we look at the sources with a significant bias attached.  Maintaing a NPOV "cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. Denaar (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes to B, no to C, fence on A. I frankly think the RfC should have been restarted early on because it was a bad RfC in the first place, owing to the fact the main statement in the RfC is not even true (there was never any inclusion of "right-wing" in the lede), but I'll vote in this as it's been made. I share the concerns Denaar has regarding the lack of sourcing for the far-right label here - three sources, only one of which outright describes the group as far-right, does not inspire confidence that this is a widely enough applied descriptor to put it up in the lede. There are sufficient sources describing GAG as being anti-LGBT so I think this should be in the lede, but far-right does not have the same backing from sources atm. I don't think we should be discussing label A because this being included in the RfC in the first place seems to have been a case of misreading. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 20:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes to B, indifferent to the rest and C The sources are pretty clear on point B (see also previous discussions), but I am personally indifferent towards the other two. I'd say "Anti-LGBT" usually goes along with "far right", but that's not really a source-based argument, and those should take precedence here . Having looked into the matter some more, this group is obviously far right. See also for example this report, by the institute for strategic dialogue.  --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes to B and C. No to A In my opinion, both B and C are adequately supported by the sources for our purposes, though the sourcing for B is a bit stronger than for C. But on the point of sources for B, I noticed earlier that The Independent published an article on 16 July that states The [Fox News] article quoted a founder of the far-right Gays Against Groomers activist group (square bracket added for context clarity). A is redundant to C, hence why I'm opposing it. I would disagree heavily with Denaar's !vote above that BLP is the policy we need to follow most closely. The extent to which BLP applies to groups is complicated and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. While GAG are heavily active on Twitter, unlike for example Libs of TikTok who is largely a single person, GAG are also a group of activists who attend protests and partake in political lobbying across the US. While it is unclear as to exactly how many members they have (I've not been able to find any reliable source for this), it seems sizeable enough that I would argue that per BLPGROUP, the BLP policy cannot apply to the organisation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No to all Wikipedia policy says in WP:BIASED and WP:VOICE that claims made by biased sources should be attributed to those sources in the article's text rather than being stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice. A. The source calling this group right-wing is The Intercept, which WP:RSP acknowledges is considered biased by "almost all editors".  B. The sources calling this group far right are AZ Mirror and The Advocate, which, if memory serves, 10 seconds of reading their articles reveals quite severe bias.  C. The sources calling this group anti-LGBT are ADL (which WP:RSP specifically calls out as being unsuitable for classifying groups in Wikivoice), AZMirror (again), TIME (which is called generally reliable on WP:RSP with the exception of op-eds, which I think the cited article feels like), and LGBTQ Nation (which is biased on its face). In order to ensure this survey's reaches those who've been chased off, I'm planning to notify the non-blocked editors who've previously been involved with this article and have not yet commented here. Oktayey (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Let me tell you straight: all people are biased. Therefore, all sources are biased. The problem for us is if they have WP:GOODBIAS or bad bias. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The page you linked is an essay. It doesn't nullify the policy guidelines I cited. Oktayey (talk) 04:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That you continuously misinterpret and misapply policy is becoming disruptive. Zaathras (talk) 04:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Simply saying I'm misinterpreting and misapplying the policy does not make it so. Oktayey (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * When multiple experienced editors are telling you that you're misinterpreting and misapplying the policies and guidelines that you're citing, over a prolonged period of time, not just on this talk page but also at NPOVN and ANI, then you almost certainly are doing so. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Assuming that one who is ideologically outnumbered is wrong is an example of the common belief fallacy. I have previously explained to excruciating ends my reasoning, and I find the retorts I've received unconvincing at best. Oktayey (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The interpretation and application of Wikipedia policies and guidelines are enshrined in the consensus mechanism. If a group of editors through discussion, across multiple talk pages and dispute resolution noticeboards, finds your repeated arguments on this point to be non-convincing, then that is not an ad populum fallacy, it is simply how our processes work. That you find what others have said to be unconvincing is, I'm afraid to say, not our problem because consensus does not require unanimity. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It sounds kind of like you're moving the goalposts from "you're misinterpreting and misapplying Wikipedia's policy" to "your view doesn't matter if nobody agrees with it".
 * I never denied that Wikipedia is consensus-driven. The consensus, however, can be at odds with the facts, hence the common belief fallacy. Oktayey (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * B and C, yes, A is superfluous. What this group is, what it does and what its beliefs are as well, well-supported by reliable sources. Zaathras (talk) 00:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * B and C, yes "Gays Against Groomers, a far-right group describing itself as an 'organization of gays against the sexualization, indoctrination and medicalization of children,'" (NBC News May 2023) I'm sure someone here will say NBC is biased too, and again, that seems to miss the point others are trying to make. I also don't mind adding attributions if that helps us move on and focus on more important aspects, but I agree that they aren't necessary, IMO. DN (talk) 05:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes to B and C. Indifferent about A (redundant). The sources have been reviewed numerous times. Hist9600 (talk) 05:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes to B and C— so A is not needed. Here are a couple of more sources: Los Angeles Times Gays Against Groomers, a far-right group and Star Tribune Gays Against Groomers, a far-right group.— Isaidnoway (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes to B but not Wikivoice for A & C Far too many of the current sources simply speak of linkage to or support by or of R-wing elements and the sources themselves appear to be too few and too partisan to be treated as being wiki-voice-able anyhow. If we have to look that hard for mentions, the claim is better attributed. But being anti-LGBT appears to be a/the defining characteristic, and is stated explicitly by sources. Pincrete (talk) 07:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC) … ps I've just gone back and looked at the rest of the lead. The 'Right-wing' connection is covered so (over?) comprehensively that the adjective is almost redundant in the opening sentence: "alongside other far-right (organizations) … who had previously been employed by right-wing communications firms … which was attended by the Proud Boys … they have been promoted by right-wing media outlets such as" - this is already approaching overkill for so many mentions in two shortish paras. One of these 'connections' is actually factually wrong, it is "GAG members Jordan Toste and Anthony Raimondi (rather than GAG itself) who helped organise the rally that the Proud Boys attended according to the ADL source used. Pincrete (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes to A. No to B and C. while calling it right-wing, despite its organizers coming from a multitude of political backgrounds, right-wing would be the best way to describe it at the moment. I would consider adding "Pro-LGBT" or "Pro-LGB" in the future. Niko (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have any Reliable Sources that characterise it as or ?  Cakelot1  ☞&#xFE0F;  talk  18:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes to B. Neutral between C and A, but leaning towards C, as far as I've seen. sources (and we can only go by what reliable sources say per WP:NPOV) characterise it as anti-LGBT. I've also seen a mixture of "Far-Right"s and "Right-Wing"s used. It is not Wikipedia's job to sugar coat what the balance of sources are saying. Cakelot1  ☞&#xFE0F;  talk  18:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes to B and C, per DanielRigal and Sideswipe9th. Reliable sources are pretty clear that they are both anti-LGBT and far-right. —  OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 16:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes to B and C (at which point A is redundant), per OwenBlacker. -sche (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes to B and C (Option A is superseded by Option C). I find WP:EXTRAORDINARY to be met. SWinxy (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes to B and C but add attribution. Agree that Option A is redundant. Theoretice (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes to B and C, A is redundant. Reliable sources don't lie.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 02:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep A, the group's founder is a gay woman. I don't see how someone can be against themself. Yousef Raz (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep A, NO to B & C - The group is made up of individuals who are LGBT. I personally think it is a bit of a stretch to say they are against all LGBT in WP:VOICE. Grahaml35 (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Which members of this group are Trans? DN (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see what a member's sexual orientation or gender identity has to do with the political bent of the group as a whole. These people have been seen protesting against the existence of drag events. You really wanna argue the group as a whole is not anti-lgbt? PS:For rendog Below, Drag is a gay activity, not a trans one. So yes. Anti LGBTQ, all of the letters. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair point. DN (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * They may well be anti-trans. But saying they are anti-LGB is silly.
 * There are straight people who cross-dress and many gay people do not. Drag is not exclusively gay nor is it necessarily anti-gay to oppose a particular activity that some gay people engage in. Rlendog (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Making the distribution of groups being targeted more diffuse rather less seems counter to the position you were previously at, which is that they are exclusively anti-trans. Either they're exclusively anti-trans or they're against a large, diffuse group of people they label as groomers, which includes drag queens of any orientation, and trans people. Can't have it both ways. And if it is  that second option, you're putting an uncomfortable amount of structural weight on the words "not necessarily" there. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that their objection to drag shows is related to the suitability of at least certain drag shows for children. I am not aware of any objection to drag shows in general.  If you have evidence that they oppose drag shows for adults, please provide it.  It may well cause me to change my opinion, especially if it establishes that the reason for their objection is that the performers are typically gay. Rlendog (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "If you have evidence that they oppose drag shows for adults" why such a narrow question? Being "anti-LGBT" can present in a lot of forms that don't involve adults at all. One of the major prongs of attack against LGBTQ people right now is in the form of book bans in high school with the goal of banning any kind of queer representation for children. Another prong (quelle surprise) is harassing and attempting to ban drag events . The motivation being "protecting the kids" does not make it any less anti-LGBT. "protecting the kids" has been the premise behind a lot of homophobic harassment (and worse!) over the years. It's not like any of this is new. --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Comment: Oppose. Don't use any of the proposed descriptors - These folks likely meet my personal definition for a far-right, anti-LGBTQ, hate group. That said, I don't see that they've got much coverage in mainstream media. I'm very hesitant to use the proposed adjectives based on left-leaning news sources. Would very much appreciate someone listing mainstream sources (e.g. CNN, NYT, LA Times, WaPo, etc) that use the desriptors in questions. NickCT (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So an initial search didn't bring anything up in any of the sources you mentioned, but these sources are considered generally reliable per WP:RSP, and do not have a sexual orientation "bias" AFAIK Newsweek & Yahoo news...DN (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC) The Anti-Defamation League is also considered generally reliable, with seemingly no mention of sexual orientation bias. DN (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * - I don't see that the Newsweek source uses the terms "far-right" or "anti-LGBTQ". The yahoo news source is actually The Advocate (magazine). And ADL is generally reliable, but in other places where we use them as a the only reference, we almost always attribute. I'm switching to oppose. My sense now is that this simply fails WP:V. Again, I'm guessing these guys probably are a far-right, anti-LGBTQ group, but until we have good sources, we shouldn't be saying that. NickCT (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No to all - we should not take claims of a person's or group's opponents, even if generally reliable, as their description in Wikipedia's voice. If the group's supporters or even several generally neutral reliable sources use these terms then fine.  But all the sources being used here seem to oppose this group. And at least one (ADL) acknowledges using rather novel analysis to get to a conclusion that a group founded by a gay person and presumably made up largely if not mostly of gay people is somehow anti-gay.  And another (Advocate) is known for published an article claiming that people that don't conform to their point of view can't actually be gay. Even if those terms are used in Wikipedia's voice, they do not belong in the first sentence, since that does not really describe what they advocate for or against.  Even Wikipedia's article on Nazis doesn't say the various things they are "anti" in the first sentence. Rlendog (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Even Wikipedia's article on Nazis doesn't say the various things they are "anti" in the first sentence is an odd statement. Nazism says "far-right" and "totalitarian" in the first sentence and lists antisemitism, anti-communism, anti-Slavism in the lead. There's a "technically correct" that "anti" does not appear in the first sentence, but it's clearly a central component of how the lede is structured. Even if you meant a different article, similar statements are in the lead of the Nazi Party and Neo-Nazism articles. This RFC is asking if these terms should appear in the lead (not the first sentence specifically). Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 17:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No to all. I'm not well-versed in Wikipedia policy, but I believe there is a policy against attempts to "right great wrongs." This site exists for informational purposes, after all, not activism. It should be sufficient to describe a group in terms of 1. its stated aims, 2. outside criticism, and 3. very careful analysis of the facts of hand, without undue ambition to resolve the issue once and for all time.
 * Yes to B and C. This is well cited and broadly how the organization is described by reliable sources. BLPSTYLE and other BLP policies don't technically apply here (this is an organization, not a living person), but taking Denaar's arguments on good faith we still clearly have unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. This is an organization primarily notable for their anti-LGBT activism, and the description of their viewpoint does not need to be censored. Also it should go without saying, but yes, obviously, an organization run by gay people can be anti-gay. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 17:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Huge props to Cakelot1's excellent source assessment (below/transcluded from User:Cakelot1/GAG Descriptors). The descriptors "anti-LGBT" and "far-right" are used to describe the organization across a broad variety of sources, including major news outlets like Time, The Independent, and The LA Times. Editors arguing against inclusion are encouraged to present reliable sources showing this isn't a broadly used description, which so far I have not seen. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 19:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No to all, being anti-drag isn't the same as anti-LGBT, especially since it's explicitly an LGBT-group. I wouldn't agree that being against drag shows is far right either (just highly correlated).--Ortizesp (talk) 06:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , I think you might be confused about what criteria we use to make these decisions. We go by what reliable sources say, not our personal opinions - despite the cognitive dissonance, they do indeed describe GAG as "anti-LGBT" and "far-right". –dlthewave ☎ 12:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd say they're anti-T, but obviously not anti LGBT. And some sources would call them far-right and others wouldn't. Ortizesp (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes to B and C - These are well supported by reliable sources who describe the organization, and it is not up to us to second-guess their analyses. –dlthewave ☎ 12:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes to B and C, which accurately summarizes what the best available sources to cover them in-depth have said about them. Most of the arguments otherwise are essentially based on WP:SYNTH or WP:OR; just because they describe themselves as LGBT doesn't mean they can't be anti-LGBT, and just because an editor's personal definition of anti-LGBT or far-right diverges from the sources doesn't mean the sources are wrong. --Aquillion (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes to B and C, per the multitude of reliable sources. Much thanks to Sideswipe9th and Cakelot1 for collecting and analyzing the sources below. The one rationale I'd most like to counter is the idea that GAG can't be anti-LGBT because the group includes gay people. This argument has no basis in Wikipedia policy or guideline, and it's factually incorrect. It frequently occurs that members of oppressed groups hold and express discriminatory views toward fellow members. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes to A, no to B and C. Right-wing is appropriate, far-right is not. Reliable sources overusing “far-right” without defining what they mean by it, or how the subject meets its criteria, should be considered less reliable as a result. “Anti-LGBT” is begging the question. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We go by what reliable sources say, regardless of whether we agree with them. Do you have reliable sources supporting your claim that these terms are inappropriate or is that just your personal analysis? –dlthewave ☎ 20:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if a source has been evaluated as generally reliable in its areas of expertise, we don't just uncritically transcribe what it says. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, WP:GREL. How should a source convince us that they have expertise in categorising organisations as far-right? Do any of the purported sources explain what they mean by far-right, or why they think the subject qualifies under that definition? How can we be sure they aren't just parroting culture war terms sourced to their editorial line, or - worse - to citogenesis? If we're considering presenting a contentious WP:LABEL in wikivoice, the reliability of the sourcing should be impeccable. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "how should a source convince us that they have expertise in categorising organisations as far-right?" you've answered your own question directly ahead of asking it. WP:GREL links to the top entry on the legend of our perennial sources table. Which is where our analysis on the reliability of the most commonly used sources on Wikipedia is summarised. The Anti defamation league for example is listed as a reliable source when it comes to hate groups and extremist organisations in the US. The ADL lists GAG explicitly as an anti LGBTQ+ extremist organisation, and even explains how they arrived at that conclusion. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to this blog, I don't see any definition of far-right given, and it seems to conflate "far-right" with "right-wing" and "conservative". But more importantly, WP:RSPADL states: ...there is consensus that the labelling of organisations and individuals by the ADL (particularly as antisemitic) should be attributed. Some editors consider the ADL's opinion pieces not reliable, and that they should only be used with attribution. So at a minimum, this source couldn't be used to support "far-right" in wikivoice. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I talked about an Anti-LGBTQ+ designation. And let's not pretend you only need to discredit one source here, there's a whole bunch. That'd be a long attributed statement. --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't need to attribute the label to every source, one will do. But which one? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm alluding to WP:EXTRORDINARY, which is one of the parts of WP:V that prevents us from using an attributed statement to describe for example stormfront as a racist hate group or (more aptly) Libs of tiktok as far right and anti-lgbt. What we actually do is to do so directly. You can describe a group with terms covered in WP:LABEL, but the evidence backing it up must be exceptionally strong. Which, in this case, it is. --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What policy are you citing? It's normal practice for LABELs to require attribution. One of the existing sources in the article supporting "far-right" is The Intercept, of which RSP says Almost all editors consider The Intercept a biased source, so uses may need to be attributed. I see a lot of WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources, a lot of biased sources, no secondary or academic sources, and it's a disputed term. I wouldn't categorise this situation as exceptionally strong. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to adress everything here, but as for academic sources about this group, those straight up don't exist, because the group is too small and too new. There's three that I've been able to find that are at least somewhat academic in nature. All three support at least a categorisation as severe as "hate group". here's a publication (and secondary source) from the Montclair school of the arts, which supports B and C based on the publications we are already citing, There's the ISD report I cited earlier , and finally there's this book (which I sadly have been unable to gain further access to). I'll be the first to admit these are not exactly high quality for an academic source, but there's literally nothing else out there. So sadly I think we'll have to make do with the news paper articles already on the talk page and these additional ones. --Licks-rocks (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Begging what question? DanielRigal (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The sources for "right-wing" (for which there are seemingly far fewer than anti-LGBT and far-right) also don't define, in your own words, "what they mean by it". With this in mind, could you please explain how right-wing is more suitable in your eyes for the lede than the other two descriptors? ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 17:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * “Right-wing” isn’t a WP:LABEL. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Why is this simple entry in Wikipedia delayed due to nomenclature that is fluid these days? Take these adjectives and put them in a separate section about the fluid word definitions, opinions, or contentious descriptions by opposing factors. Stop arguing about the "-wing" and degrees of farness. In the interim, Wikipedia misinforms people who want to rely on a neutral description, not political nor opinions. fagould (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
Does the article mention why GAG was formed? I have not read why GAG was created and its goal of protecting children. This would seem to be an important topic of discussion. It would also explain why they started the group. It would also affirm they are not anti-gay. For your edification I've provided a Twitter link to one of the GAG officials giving video testimony. There's nothing better for factual documentation than original source material. That's the first rule of a research paper. Provide original sources whenever possible. Link: https://twitter.com/againstgrmrs/status/1681481109157158914?s=20
 * Huh? The first sentence in the lead says they're far-right, not right wing. I don't think this is a good RfC. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 12:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Good point, I just copy and pasted the suggestion made in the thread above. I shall change it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

MDaisy (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry but this would be wp:or also this does not adress the question in this RFC. Any content must be based upon what wp:rs say. Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * As you have been told repeatedly, irrelevant. Zaathras (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm collecting all of the reliable sources mentioned so far in the RfC that have described GAG as far-right. So far, in addition to the citations already in the article, we have:
 * The Independent who state The article quoted a founder of the far-right Gays Against Groomers activist group
 * NBC News who state Gays Against Groomers, a far-right group
 * LA Times, May 2023 who state he would donate $10 to Gays Against Groomers, a far-right group that protests drag queen story events
 * StarTribune who state But carrying the bill made Finke a target of the national Gays Against Groomers, a far-right group that campaigns against gender-affirming care for children.
 * LA Times, June 2023 who state She said she has been heckled by far-right groups such as the Proud Boys and Gays Against Groomers.
 * I'll add to this list if more editors cite sources that have not already been mentioned in previous discussions (see here, and here or cited in the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Since all those articles are from the past several months, I can't help but worry that there's circular reporting going on here; that those articles' authors repeated these claims because they saw it on Wikipedia, without realizing Wikipedia was repeating the claims from sources like The Advocate and Media Matters.
 * But anyway, from a quick search, here are a few articles that do not describe GAG as far-right or anti-LGBT:
 * The Los Angeles Times (non-paywalled mirror), who call GAG "A small LGBTQ group formed to protest story hours and all-ages drag shows"
 * KVCR News, who state "Gays Against Groomers is a group of conservative gay people who believe that children should not have access to gender-affirming care."
 * Florida's Voice, who state "Gays Against Groomers is a 501(c)4 organization of gay people who 'oppose the recent trend of indoctrinating, sexualizing and medicalizing children under the guise of LGBTQIA+.'”
 * The Tennessee Star, who call GAG "An organization that fights against the 'sexualization, indoctrination, and medicalization' of children"
 * Oktayey (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And the evidence for WP:CITOGENESIS is...? tgeorgescu (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have any yet. I thought saying it was merely a worry of mine would make that obvious. Oktayey (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The LA Times is the only one of these which is deemed a reliable source by WP:RSP. "FL Voice News" is not a reliable source, and by the looks of it, only publishes articles about conservatives or Republicans, and talks about "patriot-owned businesses" that support them at the bottom of the page. The Tennessee Star appears to just reprint from other sources - given many of their articles are from Breitbart, which is specifically blacklisted by Wikipedia - in fact, the article appears to come from Liz Collin of "Alpha News", a site run by a group of Tea Party Republicans who remain anonymous, which inspires zero confidence in its reliability. Finally, the KVCR source is fine, but the fact that one can only locate two sources doesn't exactly help. When you weigh up these sources vs the infinite amount of other, more reliable sources that describe GAG as anti-LGBT, it's clear that the descriptor is commonly applied. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 23:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * To get it out of the way first, the fact that only the LA Times is on WP:RSP doesn't mean much, considering the vast majority of articles this very Wikipedia page cites are also not from sources on RSP.
 * The question is: Are sources the sources I provided any less biased than the sources I was assured are unbiased enough to support a claim in Wikivoice, such as Media Matters, LGBTQ Nation, and The Advocate? Oktayey (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, only two of the sources you provided are reliable. What the two unreliable sources, Florida's Voice and Tennessee Star, state doesn't really matter for us.
 * For the LA Times, this is a case where I'd defer to WP:RSAGE. As the organisation does more things and becomes more noticed, sources about them will become more reliable. From a quick search, it seem the LA Times have published four articles on or mentioning GAG, two on 22 February 2023 (article 1, article 2), one in May 2023, and one in June 2023. Both the May and June articles describe GAG as a far-right group. Is the LA Times now biased because they've factually described GAG as far-right in two articles, when their older coverage did not do so?
 * For the KVCR source, that was published only a couple of months after the organisation started publicly protesting. At the time there was little to know about the organisation itself, perhaps excluding that they had been suspended on Twitter multiple times for breaching the then policies of the site and been subject to some criticism. I would be interested to see how KVCR would cover the organisation today, versus in December 2022, but it seems they have not published any articles on or mentioning GAG in the intervening period. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sideswipe9th I mean, half of those articles being from a biased source is a better success rate than the GAG WP page itself. Over half of the sources are from "LGBTQ Nation", "them.us", "The Advocate" and "Media Matters". Niko (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly normal for specialist sources to be used on an article such as this. LGBTQ Nation, them.us, The Advocate, are all reliable sources that specialise in LGBT+ adjacent content. If you feel as though those publications are not reliable then I would suggest making a post at WP:RSN, however I would suggest that you bring evidence of their unreliability prior to doing so. It's also important to note that source bias on its own does not make a source unreliable. There has to be evidence that the source's bias is otherwise affecting their editorial content, and causing them to publish false or otherwise misleading content.
 * Media Matters is marginally reliable, and our current consensus is that reliability should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. However that case-by-case evaluation was undertaken back in March 2023, and the uses that are currently present in the article are considered acceptable by several long term editors.
 * As for source bias in general, WP:RSBIAS already accounts for this where it tells us that reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. In some cases a source's bias, assuming it's otherwise reliable, may make in-text attribution appropriate, however the "half of the sources" that you're referring to are already using in-text attribution where appropriate. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Just because a source is an LGBTQ+ news organisation does not mean it is biased or unreliable. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 16:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Not in its entirety, but It does mean it is biased in favor of its own identity. Think about how a Christian magazine shouldn't be trusted to objectively report on an athiest group. Oktayey (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The Universal Code of Conduct is biased against homophobia; being in favour of tolerance and opposed to bigotry is not unobjective. We trust some LGBTQ+ sources to reliably report on LGBTQ+ topics because homophobia is not-neutral. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 17:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What are you saying? Are you arguing that a source can be expected to impartially report on its ideological opponent? Oktayey (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a question fit for those described at the blog American Loons. If you side with the homophobes you should be site banned.
 * Hint: the two "ideological" sides aren't equal. The same as Martin Luther King's side wasn't equal to the Ku Klux Klan. He fought for human rights, KKK fought against human rights.
 * Ronald Reagan stood for exporting human rights to other countries. What does his party now? Fights against human rights at home. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Tgeorgescu, @Oktayey, @OwenBlacker, this is all totally off topic. As sources aren't discounted because of bias (but because of their unreliability). Arguments about the UCoC or who is fighting for rights is completely beside the point and only confuse matters.
 * Oktayey, as has been repeatedly pointed out, and very succinctly by Sideswipe9th above, bias doesn't discount sources from being used, nor dose it impact on their reliability or on the descriptions used in the article when the multitude of other sources also use these same descriptions. Cakelot1  ☞&#xFE0F;  talk  12:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As I have repeatedly pointed out (though perhaps not recently), while a source being biased doesn't entirely discount it from being used, it does discount it from being used to substantiate claims made in Wikivoice, per WP:BIASED. Oktayey (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, the way that you've been reading WP:RSBIAS for the last few months has been that any perceived bias in a reliable source requires attribution. Breaking the guideline point down a sentence at a time:
 * Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. This is pretty straightforward, articles should follow the NPOV policy. However keeping that in mind, it's important to remember that following the NPOV policy does not mean we cannot include negative descriptors, especially when those descriptors are the neutral point of view on a given topic.
 * However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. This is common sense, if we excluded every source that made a factual assertion that didn't meet those three descriptors, then in practice we would have very few if any reliable sources at all.
 * Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Again, common sense, and not uncommon in niche topics.
 * Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Not much to say on this, other than it's just a non-exclusive list of common biases.
 * Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. This is where your argument starts to fall apart I'm afraid. Context matters, and you and other editors have yet to actually present any evidence that the sources we use are unreliable in this context.
 * When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. This is a pretty standard assessment for any source cited in an article. We should always be checking if a source meets the requirement for reliability before citing, especially as it's not uncommon for reliable sources to contain [[WP:RSOPINION|opinion and editorials}} alongside their factual reporting.
 * Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate [examples trimmed] Key qualifier here, may make. RSBIAS does not require us always to attribute factual assertions for descriptors. If the descriptor is particularly widespread, it almost certainly is the neutral point of view on a given topic. For example, we can say that David Icke is a conspiracy theorist, or that the KKK is a white supremacist, far-right terrorist, hate group while still following the neutral point of view.
 * Nowhere does this guideline point require us to discount [a source] from being used to substantiate claims made in Wikivoice when considering the full extent of sources on a given assertion, especially when the source meets the normal requirements for reliability. If what you said were true, then no enwiki article would be able to include descriptors that an individual or organisation disapprove of. That would also decidedly be non-neutral, as instead of describing a subject along the terminological lines that our sources use, we would be inserting our own editorial bias by disagreeing with the terminology our sources use, and be inserting ourselves as truth finders. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for actually diving into the weeds and prompting in-depth discussion. I find it hard to justify sinking 50 minutes into composing an essay when the other side isn't doing the same, but this really waters the garden of discourse.
 * "Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context." This is where your argument starts to fall apart I'm afraid. Context matters, and you and other editors have yet to actually present any evidence that the sources we use are unreliable in this context.
 * In the subsection just below the one WP:CONTEXTMATTERS links to, it elaborates on what that means:
 * The very same source may be reliable for one fact and not for another. Evaluation of reliability of a source considers the fact for which the source is cited, the context of the fact and cite in the article, incentives of the source to be reliable, the general tone of credibility of the source for the specific fact, etc. For example, a web site that purports to list an artist's works is likely reliable for the fact that the artist authored a specific work, if the web site list meets other criteria for reliability (e.g., not under control of the artist or otherwise questionable) [...] But neither the list web page nor the publisher's web site are per se reliable for any critical, artistic, or commercial evaluation of the work, or any rank ordering of merit, without further indicia of reliability.
 * I think I've made analogies to illustrate why the sources' biases disqualify them, but I hadn't backed up those analogies with Wikipedia's guidelines, which is my mistake. See, a source cannot be trusted to fairly report on its ideological opposition because it lacks, as quoted above, incentives to be reliable, especially when it lacks the general tone of credibility for such reporting. I'm not saying there aren't still facts that such a source cannot be trusted to fairly report on, but this is why I made analogies like if you'd trust a magazine run by fans of Macintosh to fairly report on the usability of Windows.
 * "Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate [examples trimmed]" Key qualifier here, may make. RSBIAS does not require us always to attribute factual assertions for descriptors. If the descriptor is particularly widespread, it almost certainly is the neutral point of view on a given topic.
 * That sentence is meaningless when isolated from the preceding sentences in its paragraph, which explain how biased sources may be reliable for some claims but not for others. It's saying that if the context suggests a biased source's reliability for a claim is questionable, the claim should be attributed to the source in the text.
 * Writing "Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate" would be meaningless without indicating which circumstances it is appropriate, which the paragraph's preceding sentences do.
 * Oktayey (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That would disqualify all Jews from making NPOV-compliant claims about the Holocaust. A large number of WP:HISTRS could be summarily dismissed as either written by Jews or by philosemites. And all Christians from making NPOV-compliant claims about the Bible and the history of Christianity.  And this is exactly what you're saying, just replace LGBT or pro-LGBT with Christians or pro-Jewish. tgeorgescu (talk)  21:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you're forgetting we're just talking about attribution requirements here, not the total rejection of a source. Remember, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective (from WP:BIASED). Such sources may be cited as long as they meet the criteria for a reliable source, but their bias warrants their claims be attributed to them in the text rather than be repeated in Wikivoice. Oktayey (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, is this customary practice in respect to Jewish WP:RS or Christian WP:RS? Then why should it be practiced in respect to LGBT WP:RS? tgeorgescu (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I would assume it's customary practice for those sources, since if it weren't, a Christian publication's claim accusing an atheist group of devil worshiping could be presented in Wikivoice. Oktayey (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The claim that atheists are devil worshipers is extremist and paranoid. It's not a claim usually made by mainstream Christian Bible professors. I mean look at the Bible articles: the majority of people cited therein are Christians and Bible professors, Jewish Bible professors are a large minority, and agnostics and atheists are a very tiny group besides the previous two groups. That means: we customarily trust Christians to provide us with NPOV-compliant WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Same applies to Jews studying the Holocaust. Again, what you miss is that we owe allegiance to WP:RS/AC, we do not owe allegiance to the middle path (half-way) between extremism and anti-extremism. NPOV isn't half-way between Jews and neo-Nazis. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean look at the Bible articles: the majority of people cited therein are Christians and Bible professors
 * Again, per WP:BIASED, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective [...] Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context". For instance, a Christian scholar would be a reliable source to support a claim in Wikivoice that the Bible tells a story about Moses parting the Red Sea, but not for a claim in Wikivoice that there actually was a man named Moses who parted the Red Sea. This is because, being a believer, said scholar's will to remain objective regarding the historical reality (or lack thereof) of biblical events would be diminished. It doesn't matter if the consensus among religious scholars agrees that fantastic events like that actually happened—their bias is clear, so they cannot be used to support such claims in Wikivoice.
 * we do not owe allegiance to the middle path (half-way) between extremism and anti-extremism
 * You seem to be operating on the misapprehension that "unbiased" means "in the middle". Average Joe concluding that the Nazis were bad would not indicate bias, and an anti-semite concluding that the Nazis and the Jews were equally at fault would not indicate a lack of bias. "Unbiased" simply means "free from factors that could unfairly affect judgement". Oktayey (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Don't you find it a little odd how no unbiased sources referred to GAG this way until the Wikipedia page was created in February? This smells heavily of WP:CITOGENESIS, so I plan to reach out to those articles' authors to get to the bottom of this. Oktayey (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 3 appear to have been published at the same time as this article was created, it is thus (given that normally an article will not be written an hour before it is published) they were wroten beofre this article was created. Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What? That's blatantly untrue. This Wikipedia article was created in February, and none of those five articles were published earlier than May. Oktayey (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ahh, crossed wires, I was talking about then ones we use in the article. Slatersteven (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Anyway, you know that WP:OR about citogenesis is disregarded by default. Even if those authors saw the claim at Wikipedia, that is something different than "Wikipedia made me do it." tgeorgescu (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sideswipe9th These all say far-right. None say anti-LGBT. Niko (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * True, but the purpose of this specific list is only to document which sources describe GAG as far-right and have been presented in this RfC. I could start a separate list if you desire to document sources that describe GAG as anti-LGBT or some other variation of the term (eg anti-LGBT+, anti-LGBTQ, etc). Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - One of the sources on the article now for "far-right" is the Advocate, and the same author called Fox News Network "far-right". "The far-right news network changed its headline after the White House called it out."  Fox news is definitely right-wing, definitely conservative - but are they in line with the groups mentioned here Far-right_politics?  We would trust this author to be a judge of what counts as far right? Denaar (talk) 04:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * FoxNews is considered generally unreliable anyway, for politics and science. Compare that to the ADL, which is generally considered a reliable source. The Advocate is not currently listed on WP:RSP, but that does not imply it is generally not reliable. DN (talk) 05:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ehhh, it's only in a subheadline that it says that, and we don't consider headlines or subheadlines reliable in any source. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The Advocate also claims that Peter Thiel isn't really gay because he doesn't conform to their views. Rlendog (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That is a Voices article, and Voices is The Advocate's opinion article category, and that would be covered by WP:RSOPINION. It would be more accurate to say something like "Jim Downs, writing in The Advocate, questioned if Peter Thiel is gay", assuming that such a statement in an article otherwise met BLP and NPOV. As what you've said in your survey response above is not accurate, you may wish to amend or strike that. The piece that Denaar linked above is in their Media reporting category. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - A few observations. I'm seeing an increasing number of !voters giving arguments based off personal assessment of the group and whether or not they're anti-LGBT, far-right, right-wing, et cetera. I'm sure the closer will note this when this RfC is being closed but to anyone considering voting, your arguments will hold a lot more sway if you engage with Wikipedia policies and the sources at hand, rather than saying "I don't think this group are anti-LGBT personally because XYZ". One can be gay and against the LGBT community as a whole. I'm also still a little bothered by the fact the question for the RfC itself (as I noted in my !vote) is still factually incorrect - the article has never that I'm aware of said the group are "right-wing". It's said far-right since the start of this RfC and even before, so the mere premise for it is incorrect. I'm not sure on the protocol for dealing with this in RfCs so I don't want to edit it, but if anyone who's more familiar wants to deal with this, it'd be appreciated. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 21:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , I noticed the same thing and was going to mention it here if you hadn't beat me to it. We always go by what reliable sources say, not our own personal opinions/analysis or how the group describes itself. –dlthewave ☎ 16:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Here's a table I've made, which somebody might find useful, of all the sources in the article currently (plus the four found by above), the relevant quotes from those sources and my best assessment at their reliability (although I'm sure I've missed an WP:RSN discussion on some of them). Feel free to add to it or change anything I've got wrong (apologies to mobile users if you can't un-collapse this, or it is auto un-collapsed):


 * What I've concluded from this exercise is the most commonly used descriptors in RSs are "Anti-LGBT" (or some variation), "Anti-Trans" (or some variation), "Far-Right" and "Right-Wing". Cakelot1  ☞&#xFE0F;  talk  14:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Disinformation, bias and sources not supporting the articles claims
This article is in dire need of a complete revision from a neutral and unbiased viewpoint. For example, this article claims the subject is "Anti-LGBT", despite this articles topic being an LGBT organisation. I understand people wanting to express their opinions, and there are outlets you can do that, like social media. However Wikipedia is a place for factual information to flourish. The writers of this article should give Wikipedia:Disinformation and "Ideological bias on Wikipedia" a read. Niko (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * See FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! The very beginning of this article is off to a biased start as I believe it says the group is anti--gay. Here's what the GAG home page says:
 * Gays Against Groomers is a 501(c)4 organization of gay people who oppose the recent trend of indoctrinating, sexualizing and medicalizing children under the guise of “LGBTQIA+
 * The group clearly states they are gay. They also state the group was founded to protect children. Here is the very first sentence of the WP article states Gays Against Groomers (GAG) is an American far-right and anti-LGBT organization You can't get more biased than that.
 * This article needs better research as the contributors have shown bias. MDaisy (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Gay, not transgender or Bi, so they are not LGBT. Also they may claim it, that does not make it true watch this "I own your house" There I have said it, is it true? This article is sourced to RS, that is the only "research" we do.Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well one may claim he/she has no gender does that make it true? That is what you are saying. And if you look deeper into their website and at their statements on social media, in the news, and by their supporters that there are plenty of bisexuals and transsexuals In GAG but you will deny that because you don't believe in the diversity of thought In the LGBT community, even though it has proven itself to exist multiple times over decades. MARCIMPERIVM (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well one may claim he/she has no gender does that make it true? I mean, aside from you dismissing the existence of agender people (which in your own words, have proven themselves to exist multiple times over decades), what exactly does this have to do with this article? As for the "plenty of" those people (I believe the correct term is "transgender"), do you have any reliable sources actually detailing this and that don't violate WP:ABOUTSELF? ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 18:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Or See FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you are splitting hairs as the term LGBQT+ encompasses all people who affirm this lifestyle. BTW I am straight, married and a mother. I have no axe to grind when it comes to whatever your sexuality is as I am for unbiased writing. The lede is off to a poor start and is biased as it ignores accepted terminology for the gay lifestyle. Here's are websites that define it: https://gaycenter.org/about/lgbtq/, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/LGBTQ One definition comes from Merriam-Webster which is the dictionary. For your edification the dictionary is a neutral source that defines language. The article is off to a poor start as it's biased. MDaisy (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * No I am demonstrating why wp:or is not a good basies for an argument. This is my last reply to this, see FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I wasn't able to find where this has ever been a request for comment. Because Consensus can change WP:CCC, and to avoid WP:OWN (No one, no matter what, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it).) I think the next step is a Request for Comment like this:
 * The article Gays Against Groomers currently states they are a "right-wing" and "Anti-LGBT" group, in Wikipedia's voice, in the first sentence of the lead.
 * A: Should right-wing be in the lead in Wikipedia's Voice?
 * B: Should Anti-LGBT be in the lead in Wikipedia's Voice?
 * Denaar (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure if you want one have one. Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I’ve not been Wiki writing for many years due to situations like this. Accuracy and neutrality should top the list in any form of good writing and does the writing follow the wiki’s voice? My understanding Wikipedia is supposed to have neutral and accurate articles. Also, wiki writing is a group effort. Has anyone contacted an admin for assistance?MDaisy (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @MDaisy, Neutrality on Wikipedia has a specific meaning that you seem to be missing. Per WP:NPOV, "neutral point of view (NPOV) [...] means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." We don't give equal time to views not present in reliable sources. Again please try reading some of the pre-existing discussions, where these topics have been discussed. And yes it has been at the administrator noticeboard before [see link] (with the response from multiple long standing editors being that it followed "the rules") Cakelot1  ☞&#xFE0F;  talk  18:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Does WP strive for accuracy in their writing? If they do the lede starts with Gays Against Groomers (GAG) is an American far-right and anti-LGBT organization which is inaccurate. As the organization was founded by gays, they are most likely not anti-gay unless they want to found an organization that hates what they practice. A better sentence would be the Gays Against Groomers is an American far-right organization created to protest gender-affirming care...I fully understand neutrality as that goes with good writing. I'm also a retired writer and my editor would have had words with me if I wrote a lede as written in this article. Thanks! MDaisy (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We simply don't have the same idea of "neutrality". We call your idea WP:FALSEBALANCE. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @MDaisy, As I say "neutrality" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, which is not necessary the same as the words commons use. It's a term of art (Please actually read WP:NPOV for the full explanation). No, Wikipedia doesn't strive for "THE TRUTH" but for "Verifiability". (See the essay Verifiability, not truth). What you're proposing, that we abandon our longstanding policies (over two decades at this point), for solely follow the sources at every turn, because we know better than them (engaging in original research is banned on Wikipedia per WP:OR).
 * As to it not being appropriate to include such descriptors in traditional writing, the whole point is that we a following the lead of sources. They are the ones who call them anti-lgbt. Check the sources next to the two descriptors and you will see that, that's the way they are characterised. Do you have any articles that primarily characterise the org as only protest[ing] gender-affirming care? Cakelot1  ☞&#xFE0F;  talk  20:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Articles should follow the 5 Pillars - WP:PILLARS - I think the discussion here is WP:VER - we do have at least one, maybe two sources that call them "right-wing", and many sources that call them "anti-lgbt" however, are those unbiased sources? I feel that the the sources using the most inflammatory language are clearly the most biased. Per WP:Due - if it's the majority view, it should be easily sourced.  If there is an important minority view, we should be able to name the opposition.  The problem here, is edtors are being asked for reliable sources that say "they aren't X" when the reliable sources don't directly say "they aren't X" - they just don't call them that.  You can't prove a negative.  Reading the past decisions making - the arguments run into problems with WP:Synth - "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source."  I do think we should include negative critique, but wikipedia tells us not to put negative critic as a statement of fact, but attribute it per WP:Voice.  I just don't understand why we aren't following the guidelines in this case.  Denaar (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Limiting descriptions to the way the subject wants to be perceived also ignores the WP:PILLARS. You say we/they aren't following guidelines, and while that may or may not be a valid view, it needs to be backed up by something instead of just being repeated, ad nauseam. As you are already well aware, that is the definition of bludgeoning, and we are all guilty of it from time to time, but it's important not to ignore. If it's a policy issue, an admin can likely clarify that, but this is probably the wrong discussion to try to instigate policy changes, if that is the goal here.
 * "The problem here, is edtors are being asked for reliable sources that say "they aren't X" when the reliable sources don't directly say "they aren't X" - they just don't call them that. You can't prove a negative." That may not be the only problem here. It's true that proving a negative isn't reasonable, but it's also unreasonable to ignore reliable sources that do exist. Part of 5P is also assuming good faith, and as far as I know, none of us are WP:NOTHERE. So what substantive evidence, that it is all just unsupported disinformation due to bias, has been presented here? Cheers. DN (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This user seems to be arguing exactly what I was months ago: that almost all of the media coverage about this group is from sources clearly at ideological odds with it, which is to say, biased.
 * I was dismissed back then, being told the consensus was against me. Since then, it looks to me like a steady stream of different editors have showed up with the same view, and have been promptly chased off. At what point have enough people chimed in in opposition to this supposed consensus? Or do their opinions not count because they're no longer here to represent? Oktayey (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Editors who oppose WP:PAGs always lose. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I hope so. Oktayey (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia always lambastes extremist organizations. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As long as the sources used to do so are reputable and unbiased, as WP policy requires, I see no problem with that. Oktayey (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If a Cat Political group reports on a Dog Political group, you think the Cat Political group might be biased? Does having a political point of view count as biased on Wikipedia?  Let's see... WP:BIASED. "Common sources of bias include political..." I guess so!  And what does this say over here? WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution." WP:IMPARTIAL - "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise, articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view." Denaar (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't do WP:GEVAL to extremist and non-extremist sources. They are not in the same league. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RSP, there is already a consensus that these are biased sources:
 * Amnesty International: "Editors may on occasion wish to use wording more neutral than that used by Amnesty and in controversial cases editors may wish to consider attribution for opinion."
 * ADL: "Some editors consider the ADL's opinion pieces not reliable, and that they should only be used with attribution."
 * The Intercept: Almost all editors consider The Intercept a biased source, so uses may need to be attributed.
 * SPLC: As an advocacy group, the SPLC is a biased and opinionated source.
 * Not reviewed:
 * AZ Mirror, their own description in their about says they "provide a platform for progressive opinions" - which is a political bias.
 * Now, compare that to a neutral group like the Washington Post that calls them a... "Social Media Account". They even call Desantis and Matt Walsh "right-wing" - but not far right; because they are trying to promote a neutral point of view.  Archive link
 * They don't say "it's not a far-right group" - they simply fail to label them at all. And that's the trend, the reliable, neutral sources avoid such statements. Denaar (talk) 01:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, completely. It is full of biased and untrue claims. StephanieMGarza1 (talk) 07:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I haven't seen any attempts at attribution (which I generally have no issue with), but I wasn't under the impression that was what we are talking about here. Like I have already said, if you want to change policy, this is not the place. Did you try WP:NPOVN? Is it accurate to say it still seems like we are talking about ignoring what the majority of sources say, including expert authorities on far right extremism such as the SPLC and ADL, and only adhering to an oddly narrow interpretation of policy that isn't applied to similar groups?

GAG isn't anything new or special, despite the advertising. Repeating the same arguments over and over is not helping, and your one "nuetral" article, that does not go specifically in depth about GAG enough to genuinely convince me that it should hold weight over experts, states "Social-media accounts like “Libs of TikTok” or “Gays Against Groomers” — which contributed to the focus on Target — have generated audiences by plucking LGBTQ-related content and outreach from their intended context and presenting them to the political right as targets. Sometimes, the attacks extend offline." (That looks like the only mention of GAG in the article, hardly enough worth mentioning, let alone set a precedent for other RS) I might be wrong but I don't see personal interpretations as to how policy should be applied to this group in spite of how it is applied most everywhere else, as proof that the horse isn't dead. DN (talk) 05:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Exactly, sources which are biased against extremist organizations have the right kind of bias. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

If you notice a large amount of new IPs at this talk page, then…
It’s probably because of this. — ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 08:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, no wonder I asked for the page to be semi protected due to disruptive editing. #prodraxis connect 16:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep, I should've checked more closely when looking at the RfPP request - mea culpa. firefly  ( t · c ) 18:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I asked for page protection too Dronebogus (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

NPOV tag
It's fairly clear from the discussion on this talk page that it would appropriate to place the NPOV tag at the top of the article. 152.130.15.98 (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * A majority of actual, vested Wikipedia editors would say otherwise. Zaathras (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody has demonstrated any substantial POV concern here. What we have seen here recently is a lot of people (or, at least, some people with a lot of IP addresses), many of whom were brought here from an externally coordinated campaign, who want to kvetch baselessly without even having read the FAQ. Loudly asserting "POV" or "controversy" is not the same as an actual controversy because an actual controversy has substance and loud assertions are just noise. To justify a NPOV tag we would need to see multiple Reliable Sources that present views contrary to those covered in the article. I doubt that such sources exist. DanielRigal (talk) 23:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Using wiki-sophistry to justify WP:OWN makes it even clearer that the tag is needed. If certain establishment editors here weren't emotionally invested in the article's POV, then they wouldn't care if there was an NPOV tag at the top.  If you care about the tag being there, it means you're committed to the article presenting a particular POV in Wikipedia's voice.  Does this article fall under ArbCom sanctions/special interest? 152.130.15.98 (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That comment doesn't even make sense. The tag being there means that someone has presented a valid reason, grounded in reliable sources, for the tag to be there. You have not done this. It's that simple. Emotion has nothing to do with it.
 * If you disagree with anything in the article, the correct procedure is to make an edit request, in the form "change X to Y", or "add X after Y", or "delete X", with reliable sources to support your proposal. Anything else is just baseless kvetching as has already pointed out. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)